London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
When I saw the RNS with the results yesterday, I was curious as to why they had set out the number of people voting (in person or by proxy) at the court meeting. For those of you who haven’t seen it, there were
84 For and
37 Against
Well after doing some digging on the internet, I found out the reason. They needed a double major as set out below
A simple majority of the persons voting and a
75% majority by number of shares voted
What this means is that if another 47 ‘No’ voters had voted, even if they only had 1 share each, Patel would have lost.
I know what you are thinking. There are hundreds of us so how did it get through and, why were only 37 ‘No’ voters recorded? The problem is that the vast majority of us hold shares in nominee accounts. For example, A J Bell, is the legal owner of all of the Shanta shares held on its platforms. A J Bell may have hundreds or thousands of Shanta shareholders on its platform but A J Bell is just one voter!
This will shock you but, all we had to do was open Personal Crest Accounts (available through certain stockbrokers – see www.sharesoc.org/investor-academy/advanced-topics/personal-crest-accounts/ ), buy one or more Shanta shares each, through the personal account, and we would each have got a vote. Accordingly, we could have easily overwhelmed them with our numbers.
I cannot express how sick I feel by not picking up on this earlier.
Still, if we ever find ourselves in a similar position again, we will know what to do. This will certainly stop any new stitch-ups so, some good has come of this after all.
Very good point for the future however
HL charges £7500 a year for Crest account
Very good point for the future however
HL charges £7500 a year for Crest account
https://www.hl.co.uk/security-centre/Central-Securities-Depository-Regulation
I did see that some platforms charged for the service but I had no idea that the cost to HL clients was £7,500 pa. Clearly, they don’t want anyone doing this.
The good news is that, according to the link within my post, some stock brokers do this for free as part of their service.
I am definitely going to make further enquiries and will report back.
CeeD, 'Hindsight is a wonderful thing' as my old mum used to say. I was as gutted as the next of us but we had little control being in nominee accounts. They've won this time but karma will bite them on the backside one day, whether we hear about it or not.
Best of luck to all. Onwards.